Peter Miller1, Ashlee Curtis1, Darren Palmer2, Ian Warren2, Emma McFarlane2. 1. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Victoria, Australia. 2. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong Waurn Ponds Campus, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Alcohol-related harm in and around licensed venues is associated with substantial costs. Many interventions have been introduced in an effort to combat these harms, and one such intervention is known as patron banning. Patron banning involves prohibiting patrons who have been violent or disorderly in a licensed venue in an attempt to reduce alcohol-related harm. It can be implemented by the venue, by members of police, or by liquor accords. This study aimed to obtain key informant perspectives on the benefits of patron banning as well as on the effectiveness of patron banning in reducing alcohol-related harm. METHOD: Thirty-six key informants provided perspectives on patron banning through in-depth interviews that were part of a larger study. RESULTS: Key informants were supportive of patron banning for reducing alcohol-related harm, noting that it had many benefits including increased venue safety, general risk management, and deterrence of antisocial behavior. Although processes for banning were not always consistent, identification scanners were generally recognized as a way to ensure that patron banning was enforced. CONCLUSIONS: Key informants viewed patron banning as an effective measure for increasing patron safety and reducing alcohol-related harms.
OBJECTIVE:Alcohol-related harm in and around licensed venues is associated with substantial costs. Many interventions have been introduced in an effort to combat these harms, and one such intervention is known as patron banning. Patron banning involves prohibiting patrons who have been violent or disorderly in a licensed venue in an attempt to reduce alcohol-related harm. It can be implemented by the venue, by members of police, or by liquor accords. This study aimed to obtain key informant perspectives on the benefits of patron banning as well as on the effectiveness of patron banning in reducing alcohol-related harm. METHOD: Thirty-six key informants provided perspectives on patron banning through in-depth interviews that were part of a larger study. RESULTS: Key informants were supportive of patron banning for reducing alcohol-related harm, noting that it had many benefits including increased venue safety, general risk management, and deterrence of antisocial behavior. Although processes for banning were not always consistent, identification scanners were generally recognized as a way to ensure that patron banning was enforced. CONCLUSIONS: Key informants viewed patron banning as an effective measure for increasing patron safety and reducing alcohol-related harms.
Authors: Peter G Miller; Jason Ferris; Kerri Coomber; Renee Zahnow; Nicholas Carah; Heng Jiang; Kypros Kypri; Tanya Chikritzhs; Alan Clough; Michael Livingston; Dominique de Andrade; Robin Room; Sarah Callinan; Ashlee Curtis; Richelle Mayshak; Nicolas Droste; Belinda Lloyd; Sharon Matthews; Nicholas Taylor; Meredythe Crane; Michael Thorn; Jake Najman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 3.295